The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-02-04
To the Public Statement OF the Fa-
nous Controversy Made by
Archbishop COrrigan.
THE GOOD FATHER, ID0LIZED
BY THE PEOPLE,
Declaves That Neither the Pope Nor
the Cardinals Can Prevent
Him From
PREACHING AND TEACHING MR..
GEORGES LAND DOCTRINE.
The Church Can Control Him rs a
Priest, But Not as q
Citizen.

NKw YORK, February 3.-The forth
coming issue OF the Standard, Henry
Georges new papsr, will contain the
reply OF the Rev. DR.. MCGlynn, the de-
posed pastor Of St. Stephens Church, to
the puolic statement upon the famous
controversy, made by Archbishop Cor.
rigan few days ago. DR.. McGlynn's
reply fills Elk columns of the Standard.
He begins as follows: The letter of
August, 1882, from Cardinal Simeoni,
to VIII ch Archbishop Corrigsn refers,
/ am not now able to find, but it Is
true, as he atee, that this letter COM
planned of my Land League speeches
as Containing propositions openly
contradictory to the teachings Of the
Catholic Church." The doctrines thus
stipmatzsd were those / Save held
and taught before and since, namely: /:
That all men are equally entitled to
the use Of the general bounties
of nature, including land, as
we'll as sunlight, air and water,
and that human laws ought to be
60 changed as to coGform to
this dictate of natural jurisd iction. 1
affirm that while sckao Wledging the
right of exclusive ownership in all
that is produced by human indus ry,
/ would at the same time compel thoss
who enjoy exclusively large or a
choicsr portion of the bounties of
ma ure to pay to the community an
equivalent IN the way OF tax alton to
the full am )unt OF the rental value. II
is absolutely false, although stated by
Archbishop CoIrigan on the author
ity OF C,rdinal McCloskey, that |
recognized my errors and professed
to be sorry for them." On the con-
trary, in my interview with Cardinal
Moo .oskey, reaffirmed the doctrine
aud explained it, and defended it from
Misunderstanding and msapprehen-
sious. l told him substantially
that l knew Theology well enough
not to sin against it ignor-
antly, and that l loved my religion too
we'll to sin against it williully. l vol
unfairly promised to abstain from
making land league speeches, not be-
cause / acknowledged that right of any
one to forbid me, but because knew
too we'll the power of my ecclesiastical
superiors to impair and almost
destroy my usefulness in the ministry
of Christ's church, to which ha con-
secrated my life. DR.. MCGlynn then
gives at length two letters from the
Propaganda, one under date of Sep
tember IL, 1882, directing the suspen-
sion or disc plining of DR.. MeGlynn for
making land league speeches; the
other, under date of May 10, 1888, call.
ing attention to the fact that, though
DR.. McGlynn had mod I'd his
tone, he was still speaking in
favor of Irish revolution, and one
from Vicar General Qlinn to Nc.
Glynn, dated May 2lst, containing a
request that hs should not attend a
certain Land League meeting. This
meeting McGlynn states, was to be
addressed by Alexander Sullivan, the
newly elected president. McGlynn
asserLs that he did not express any in
tsnlion of attending it, and that other
priests were similarly warned. Ia re-
ply to the complaint from Rome of
May, 1888, McGiynn wrote to Cardi-
nal M'Oloskey: l regret very much
that the Cardinal Project has found
new cause for dsplessure in a report
in some Boston journal. The meeting
must have been that held in
this city in February last, which
was not a Land League meet.
ing tuch as 1 had voluntarily prom
ised you not to attend, but was for the
relief of people suffering from famine
in Ireland, and was held by a union
OF Irish county societies under the
name of the Irish Confederation OF
America. l find in a journal an &C.
count of the sending OF the money
raised at that meeting, with a letter
Of Bishop Nulty, showing how il was
used to relieve distress in Ireland.
/ inclose this article, and / beg you to
consider it a part Of this letter. In
speaking for the relief OF distress 1
alluded to the iDj ustics which is the
cause of it, and urged the duty OF
redressing such injustice. In this
thought l was but favoring that de.
mand for justice to Ireland which was
made by 0'Cennell and the bishops
and priests of Ireland and by many of
our own, especially Archbishop
Hughes, and which has been, think,
commonplace in the st. Patrick 3
days ceremony. l shall hencsforth re.
fuse to take part in any such meeting,
even though it be for charitable OBJ
j9cts. DR.. McGlynn then quotes in
his letter giving reasons for not taking
a profered summer vacation ia a trip
to Rome to present his case in per-
son, saying that it would interrupt
plans for reducing his church debt,
gives the text of hls statement of his
well known views on the land question
published in the Tablet, holding that
he was in accord with the fathers Of
the church whose Language he quotes.
This brought out a note from the
Archbishop as follows:
NEw YoRE, July 2, 1888.
Reverend Dear Doctor:
The Cardinal has received a copy OF
this weeks Tablet containing your
promised statement. He desires me
to ask whether you accept this article
as the correct statement Of your
views. He also thinks it well to call
attention 20 the fact that the passages
attributed to st. Ambrose aud St.
Clement are commonly considered
spurious, and that 81. Augustine, in
the passage alluded to, is arguing, id
hominsm, that heretics can sllege no
right to church property. 1 am, rev.
erend dear Doctor, very truly, yours
in Christ,
M. A. CoRRIGAN. COadjutOr.
answered as follows:
NEW YORK, July 8, 1888.
Most Reverend aud Uear Archbishop:
mad sent for copy OF the 1Gb.d
with the intention OF sending the
promised statement to the Cardinal
Archbishop and had just received it
when received your letter. iDcloss
To- NA..n Il Il. l. II IL